Posted
by
Soulskill
on Monday November 07, 2011 @02:58PM
from the you-know-we-call-a-lot-of-things-pages-right dept.

karthikmns writes with news that Google is rolling out Google+ Pages, integrating businesses and brands into its social network. When Google+ launched, it asked businesses not to create user pages, which upset many companies who had grown accustomed to interacting with customers on Facebook. Today's update closes the gap between the two social networks in this regard, which can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on how annoying you find social marketing.
"If you’ve established a personal Google+ profile before, then the features offered through a Page will be familiar. You can place people into Circles, which lets you share content with specific sets of users. You can launch video hangouts, which lets you have face-to-face conversations with your followers. And the Pages work through the site’s mobile app. ... But Google has made some key tweaks. The first is that a Page cannot add someone to a circle until that user has already added the page to one of their circles. In other words, a Page can’t start sending you messages until you’ve elected to add them to one of your circles. Another key change: the content on a Page defaults to public (as opposed to ‘My Circles’ for personal profiles) and Pages can’t share with extended circles."

It looks, at least, like Google has abandon the "Real Name" policy. Looking at the Google+ Privacy Policy and Google TOS pages today, I could not find any mention of a real name requirement. Unless I missed something (possible), it looks like Google did the Right Thing after considerable pressure from the community at large:

They have huge limits on your account if you use pseudonym instead. And they only backed out of real name policy as it become impossible to verify with different nationals and they started losing users. Of course, they are still losing users.

Google just doesn't seem to get the full picture. They imitate Facebook but do it poorly. Lets take for example this pages change. They didn't implement pages properly, they only modified the profile system a bit and actually restricted pages. Google+ pages don't allow HTML or anything else like Facebook does. The absolutely worst thing is the url though; With Facebook you get facebook.com/nintendo. Companies can easily put that in to ads and other material. With Google+ the url is http://plus.google.com/58493672095786225 [google.com]. Awesome! Google just doesn't see the whole picture.

Just type: +Nintendo or +Pepsi into your browser's google search bar, or into google search directly. Takes you right to the page. Much easier than a URL. Once there, you are on the URL, so if you like, you can bookmark it.

Breaks 100% of web standards. It's tough to be in google's shoes though.. do you copy facebook 90% 80% or 70%, facebook dues urls in type a, do we use type a or type b. Myself, I've never gone facebook.com/pepsi, nor do i plan to, nor will i go +pepsi, --> google "pepsi facebook" is good enough for me without needing to remember useless corporate shit. Then again I drink pepsi, I don't see a reason to go to their website for anything, unless my computer gets a soda dispenser that mixes formu

If you don't understand why HAVING TO USE google's search engine to utilize the + feature does not conform to a url (the thing you use to access websites) then Idk what to say to you, alone indeed. Try the astronomy section of slashdot.

The biggest problem with G+ is that they've rushed to release. Even the badge code for pages isn't ready. For a startup it looks bad but people would probably just shrug it off, for google it's a fucking catastrophe.

Sorry, in that case I must have misunderstood the PP. I read the comment as saying "Facebook allows HTML, G+ does not, therefore G+ is worse". I do have a FB account but I do not remember seeing any custom HTML on the few non-personal pages I have visited there. Obviously not allowing such customisation is a Good Thing, of course.

Sorry, in that case I must have misunderstood the PP. I read the comment as saying "Facebook allows HTML, G+ does not, therefore G+ is worse". I do have a FB account but I do not remember seeing any custom HTML on the few non-personal pages I have visited there. Obviously not allowing such customisation is a Good Thing, of course.

I was agreeing with you that allowing user HTML on pages isn't great, and I think your interpretation of the comment is correct. I've not seen any Facebook pages with page owner added HTML either, which is what I suspect the original post was about, but wouldn't be surprised if it is possible.

Judging from my Google+ feed, everyone else has already jumped. They had a golden window of opportunity with great press and they not only blew it, but they intentionally blew it. No API, the real name idiocy, it's almost as if they wanted to have a social network without having to actually understand how people use a social network.

Replying also to GP: The problem is that, unless FB turns into some totally useless thing or G+ gets a media thunderstorm coming, people won't move from FB, no matter how many celebrities or tech geeks do move.

Diaspora has more or less no hope of even making it into half recognition. Screwing up at 10x the significance google did. Step 1. Generate tons of starter funds donations etc..., 2, Generate hype, more hype, ask for more donations. 3. Launch a prototype, so full of security holes, bugs etc... that 3/4ths of tinfoil hats realized it was in their best interest to steer clear of the product. 4. Make no more anouncements for a year and a half, let whatever remaining sparks of hype that weren't crushed by step

Oh I agree, the concept was fantastic. If they had released something half way up to the hype, something that didn't have so many security vulnerabilities to the point that they couldn't find something in your profile that couldn't be hacked, on the first demo, and had it actually launched back when there was hype. G+'s biggest criticism is that they don't have the API's up to strike while the iron is as hot as it's going to get. Diaspora was weak because... well the time for it to strike it big and move up

But the Facebook API is what makes me dread going to my Facebook account. No one on G+ has told me about getting a new calf or asked me to join their gang. My G+ page is just me, my friends and Wil Wheaton (oh and Felicia Day).

The first is that a Page cannot add someone to a circle until that user has already added the page to one of their circles. In other words, a Page canâ(TM)t start sending you messages until youâ(TM)ve elected to add them to one of your circles. Another key change: the content on a Page defaults to public (as opposed to âMy Circlesâ(TM) for personal profiles) and Pages canâ(TM)t share with extended circles.

What is this inane gibberish, how is it news for nerds? Does anyone care abou

Not all of them spam like that, especially small business owners. I have friends around the world and spend most of my year living elsewhere too, and especially in Asia some expats have small businesses on the side, like restaurants or baking things you can't get elsewhere. When they post "I'm baking (food we eat in my home country), they just went to oven!" it really doesn't seem like bad marketing. So I go visit, grab a beer and buy and eat a piece or two while talking with the guys at the same time. In a

I do see your point, that a heck of a lot of people follow Ms Limor Fried (misspelled?) and she posts a heck of a lot of good stuff on G+ but a lot more people would be able to find and follow a G+ ladyada.com page.

Ian Lesnet from Dangerous Prototypes always posts to his blog, which is perfectly OK, but I imagine a lot more people would follow +DP than +Ian.

Uncle Leo and TWIT probably don't qualify as merely being small businesses anymore, but I could see that none the less being easier to find. Hmm... +Tr

... Google needs to finish refining the product and then re-produce (since they did it before) the media campaign they carried out to drive excitement and interest in Google+. So many people came, got in, found few friends in the system, and left their G+ accounts stagnant --- or came, and didn't even get in --- that they really need a massive campaign to drive interest again. And since most people that use social networking already know about G+, they should approach it as such; they should be saying "come pop in again, and get your friends in for real this time" or something of the sort.

Like most of the people I know with G+ accounts, I appreciate it and its merits beyond facebook, but the long transition from the level of contact I have via FB to any level close to that in G+ looks like it is so far out that I hardly ever check G+ at all. Not only that, I see absolutely no trend of migration. I came to G+, got a few friends, invited some that came, and since then there has been NOTHING.

Come on Google! For your sake, and also for those of us who recognize your product quality, make yourself visible! (Its not like you don't have massive advertising, for free, within your reach, lol).

Google could afford one hell of a marketing campaign if they wanted to, but I don't see much evidence of this. Why did they not do a full on media blitz at launch?

I can only assume that + is internally still considered a sort of "soft launch" and they won't start mass marketing until they reach feature parity with Facebook. Maybe they're hoping to "seed" Plus with early adopters now, who will make the service more attractive when it "really" launches, but they run the risk of losing a lot of those early ado

Its not like you don't have massive advertising, for free, within your reach, lol

Actually, Google doesn't have free advertising within its reach. Not as much as you might think, anyway. Every Google+ ad they show that displaces a paid ad has a very definite and easily-measurable cost. And even ads that don't displace paid ads (Google often chooses not to show ads if nothing particularly relevant is available) have a non-zero cost to Google because they increase "ad blindness" in users.

Hell, my circles *leapt* enthusiastically onto G+, then were largely driven away because they're all prone to using Funny Names On The Internet. My G+ stream went from being a happening thing to a ghost town.

Not really. If someone's logged in, there's more than a pretty good chance that they'll get notification that someone has responded and can go back and read the response to their comment. With an AC there's little reason to respond, since there's little liklihood the AC will see your response.

I generally ignore ACs unless I'm moderating and one says something that might be of interest, but I never respond to their comments unless they say something stupid that needs to be countered AND if someone has modded

I generally ignore ACs unless I'm moderating and one says something that might be of interest, but I never respond to their comments unless they say something stupid that needs to be countered AND if someone has modded them up.

But do you respond anonymously, as this person did when he/she chose to make disparaging comments about posting anonymously?

I see Google now wants me to google ' +Brand Or Business That I Want To Videochat With 'So that is why they disabled the + search operator, now requiring two double quotes surrounding the word you insist on actually appearing in every search result.

I think it's fairly obvious that Facebook's enormous success is at least in part because so many businesses have gotten on board. Even little mom and pop stores have "like us on Facebook" stickers everywhere. Which in turn makes people, even old people and such that aren't usually so tech-savvy, want to check out this Facebook thing. Which makes more businesses want to sign up, and we have a nice feedback loop going.

Yes, people need to be on + for its success, but Google has just taken too long to get the

Linus Torvalds - 4:24 PM - Public
So the google pages thing might actually work as a reasonable place to do kernel release announcements.
I always felt like I wouldn't want to do them on my personal page, but having a G+ page dedicated to Linux makes the announcements actually make sense.
So if you are following me because you expected to see kernel announcements, and you haven't figured out already that I'm very spotty with that, you might want to unfollow me, and follow the Linux page instead.
Of course, I might be spotty there too. It's not like I'm the most organized person in the world. But at least there is one release announcement there now.

And the actual announcement:

Linus Torvalds - 3:53 PM - Public
By popular demand...
Linus Torvalds shared a Google+ page with you.
Linux - you know you want it

Linus Torvalds - 4:24 PM - Public
So the google pages thing might actually work as a reasonable place to do kernel release announcements.
I always felt like I wouldn't want to do them on my personal page, but having a G+ page dedicated to Linux makes the announcements actually make sense.
So if you are following me because you expected to see kernel announcements, and you haven't figured out already that I'm very spotty with that, you might want to unfollow me, and follow the Linux page instead.
Of course, I might be spotty there too. It's not like I'm the most organized person in the world. But at least there is one release announcement there now.

And the actual announcement:

Linus Torvalds - 3:53 PM - Public
By popular demand...
Linus Torvalds shared a Google+ page with you.
Linux - you know you want it

So yeah, like who gives a rat's a$$ about kernel announcements who isn't already following the kernel changes on a daily basis?

Apparently, their naming policy is still very much geared toward individual users. Upon trying to create a page for my non-profit, we were first required to update our profile, and then warned that our name was not consistent with their naming policy, so I had to update it. After doing so, it allowed me to create a page, but the profile has a warning saying that it has been disabled because our name was flagged as being inconsistent with their policy. I understand that this is in an alpha stage, but the pro

Hate to break it to you but this is absolutely not the same and not better. If you type www.facebook.com/business you land on the business page straight away, and the first thing you see is whatever content business placed there.

If one follows your method, you land on a Google search page where the page you look for is one of many links. Yes, it is the top link but you are still on google, you still see the listing of other random crap (or related crap if you're [un]lucky). It takes an extra click to get to

Either way - doing it myself in Google, or using your link - gets me a standard search page of results, with pepsi.com at the top. There's no reference to Google+ on the front page.

And if you legitimately could say "you're doing it wrong"... that kind of proves how useless it is, doesn't it? The point is it's supposed to be easy to get there. The methods I'm seeing described here are anything but easy.

But of course, even though that looked like a stream on pepsi's page, it was really just search results. Too bad that I can't really see which one was the real pepsi google+ page (glad to see their policy on real names is working fine).

In short - Google+ is a total failure, which is a pity. They need to stop trying to be like facebook and start being like a communications hub where w

Yes, Google has destroyed an important feature of their search engine (using +term to mean that term absolutely has to appear on the page to count as a result) just to keep from businesses from asking for human-readable URLs in Google+.

Since this was never required before, and there isn't any documentation that says this is required (in fact, the only documentation for the "+" is for the Google+ Direct Connect), I don't see why I shouldn't expect it to work the way it always did.

I dunno what you're talking about. I learned about putting terms in quotes several years ago from Google's own help pages. Putting terms in quotes has been supported as long as using +terms were. If they've been light on that information lately that is a problem, but it's not some new feature. I've never used +terms before, it has always been quotes.

Not just that, but they did it by silently ignoring the + for quite a while... to the point that it took me ages to figure out why it wasn't working anymore. (Of course, the only reason I needed to use it so much in the first place was because Google's spelling correction feature has gone malevolent and started mangling searches for specialist things into the more common search it thinks you wanted. Sigh.)